Talk:Cryptex

Plural

Minor nit: in this article, we use "cryptexes" as the plural for cryptex. However since it is a portmanteau of cryptology and codex, one would assume it pluralises the same way as codex, i.e. "codices" (pron. "ko d' seez"). As Dan Brown coined the word, I guess he also gets to invent the plural; however, I do not recall seeing it in plural in the book. If anyone finds it pluralised in the book we should go with that, otherwise I would recommend "cryptices" (pron. "krip t' seez"). --Securiger 09:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds right, and "cryptices" gets used in this forum: [1]. — Matt Crypto 13:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The real thing?

http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/davinci_code/davinci_art.html An image on this page seems to suggest that da Vinci really did have plans and diagrams for a codex. The sentence from the article, "It is claimed in the novel that the original design came from the secret diaries of Leonardo da Vinci; whether there is any basis for this claim remains undetermined." would have to be rewritten if so. -- Mjwilco 18:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A codex is not the same thing as a cryptex. A codex just means a flat book, in contradistinction to a scroll when referring to very old books. The diagram labelled "codex with reverse handwriting" is from folio 90 verso of Codex Forster II, i.e. the image itself (not the diagram in the image) is of a page of a codex—with reverse handwriting. The diagram and surrounding text is Leonardo's (extremely critical!) analysis of a proposed perpetual motion machine; see e.g. [2]. It has nothing whatever to do with document security, combination locks etc. Securiger 16:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I removed the text:

(A way to defeat this is to construct the cryptex using lead metal. Lead shields contents of the cryptex and renders X-ray scanning useless.)

There are a couple of reasons for this. First and foremost, the cryptex in the novel was not made of lead, so this is addressing a hypothetical improved cryptex invented by the the author of the comment, which is original research. Secondly, it is wrong, or at least a huge oversimplification. Lead does attenuate x-rays, but so indeed do all materials. It is just that the denser the material is, the less thickness required to achieve a given degree of attenuation, or conversely, the stronger the initial beam must be to get a given signal out the other side. As such, lead is only a small improvement over brass, and would only require a slight increase in the beam power.

There are other tricks which could be used to make x-raying much more difficult, and some of them are actually used by safe manufacturers to thwart use of portable x-ray machines by safe crackers. However any mention of that sort of thing would be getting way, way off topic. The cryptex is a specific (fictional) object supposedly created with Renaissance technology; a general discussion of the secure design of modern combination locks would be a whole different ball of wax. -- Securiger 06:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Following up myself: come to think of it, I suggest that on similar grounds we should remove the stuff about paper sized with bicarbonate of soda. It sounds plausible, but until someone else demonstrates that it is practicable to make and use paper of this sort, it is also original research. And further, it is certainly possible to make an effective self-destruct mechanism by some means (explosives, thermite, etc. etc.), but the question addressed here is whether the one actually proposed would work (and the answer is "no"). (I might be more sympathetic to the suggestion that Brown may have substituted vinegar for oil of vitriol for safety reasons, in case fools tried to copy it and hurt themselves; but unless someone knows that he actually did so, that is also speculation.) -- Securiger 06:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that freezing it would work. As the vinegar started to freeze, the expansion would crack the glass, allowing the remaining liquid to leak out. -- 15:58, 07 November 2006 (UTC)

^Note 1 : Which chars paper or papyrus in a few seconds and shortly afterward may ignite it, and was available to Renaissance intellectuals. Further, although the pure acid freezes at 10°C, quite small traces of water rapidly lower that to the region of -30°C

Cryptexes Available for Purchase

The company that manufactures and sells cryptexes is Encrypta Gifts of Mequon, Wisc. They sell them on eBay under the user ID encrypta-gifts. I didn't post the full info on the company in the article, since I wasn't sure if it violated any rules about promoting commercial ventures. By the by, I have no interest in this business. -- JakeApple 04:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Several companies are now making and selling various versions. And yes, we do avoid promoting commercial ventures on Wikipedia. Commercial links should only be used when they add substantive value to the article that cannot otherwise be easily met. The Justin Nevins reference is borderline, but possibly slips past because he seems to have been the first to do so, and sold one to Brown. However I would certainly countenance removing all vendors' names. -- Securiger 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Papyrus or Vellum???

The article mentions that the scroll inside the cryptex would be made of papyrus. If I remember correctly, in the book it was not papyrus, but rather vellum. Animal vellum or paper vellum might actually dissolve when soaked with vinegar. Thus, the author's claim that a cryptex wouldn't work because papyrus doesn't dissolve in vinegar, may be a moot point. I don't have the book handy, and so, can't verify.

Can someone please check on the accuracy here, and update the article if necessary?

Would vellum dissolve in vinegar? fast enough to matter? - 03:03, 15 October 2006 (HST)

Just my five cents on the matter: Ehm, does it matter if the "paper" dissolves? It should be enough that the vinegar dissolves the text enough to make it unreadable and that is much easier to achieve. Note, I have not read the book and did not listen enough in the film to note if they said that the "paper" would dissolve or they just stated that the message would be destroyed. And to me "destroyed" can just as well mean "rendered unreadable". --David Göthberg 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Vellum is basically fine leather. It doesn't dissolve in vinegar at all. Mediaeval and Renaissance inks were generally either iron-gall nut ink or indian ink (based on lampblack). Neither reacts with vinegar at all, and iron-gall nut ink is also almost completely waterproof after it sets and binds to the substrate. Indian ink is fairly resistant to wetting but the gum binder will eventually soften and blur, however this takes quite some time; in this article we previously had a link to a description and photograph of real mediaeval documents that were accidentally immersed in a flood for several days; they were smudged, but still legible. Unfortunately someone has removed the link for some reason. -- Securiger 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In the book, the general description of a cryptex stated that it must be papyrus and not vellum, so that it would dissolve in vinegar. The white outer cryptex, however, was found to contain a vellum scroll. The black inner cryptex contained a papyrus scroll and the vial of vinegar.

There seems to be something missing from this article. I remember reading many years ago about a thing very like this cryptex. It was a (sophisticated) device carried by Vatican couriers in the medieval period to keep important messages safe.

These couriers were very important and what they carried was often literally worth more than their lives - things of absolutely vital importance. Unlike the cryptex in the Da Vinci Code though, the messages they carried had to be delivered quickly and didn’t have to survive for hundreds of years.

Like the cryptex it was a locked sealed cylinder that contained a tightly rolled scroll, also like it it contained a self destruct mechanism. It mentioned a mechanism that released a tight spring that triggered/fired the rest of the machine. There are differences though, I'm pretty sure the original used a liquid that was probably a strong acid but may have been an incendiary. Another possibility is that it was water and that there was a powder or something that reacted to it. Another thing I remember was that the mechanism was instant, I think that the scroll itself was coated with or made of something that reacted to the liquid. The whole thing had to be kept dry or was watertight and sealed. One other thing I seem to remember about it was that they sometimes carried a kind of timing mechanism that was something like a metal strap or pin that slowly dissolved in acid then broke. - This was to make sure the message was destroyed if it was abandoned or lost.

As to my source it was at least 15 years ago I read it and I don’t remember exactly what it was but I seem to remember it was talking about medieval alchemy and science, and about inventions and other things. In the past I've read through a lot on medieval and pre-modern period science, and I think the source I was reading originally came from the early twentieth century or Victorian era.

One of the problems researching a lot of this kind of thing is that not only do the first hand references no longer exist, they only come through third hand, authors talking about sources that/who researched other sources. People like Darren Brown and Umberto Eco have exactly the same problem, that is one of the reasons they create these books written as fiction that often contain seeds of 'real' truth. The Da Vinci Code might be a book with a weird wrong primary premise and although it is fantasy it is pointing at something hidden that is definitely there. Medieval scholars loved secrets.

Lucien86 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of possibilities

In the film i think sophie said it had over 2 million possiblities but i believe that because there are 5 letters each of which can be any of the 26 letters of the alphabet that the total is much bigger: 26^5 = 11,881,376
Is this correct and if so should it be in the article?
212.120.248.128 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

2 million is certainly an understatement, but there shouldn't be 26 letters. I'd think 23 (about 6 million options), but not certain; I'm no expert on the Latin alphabet. -- 76.23.87.83 (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The book said twenty million, which is too many. In the movie it was changed to twelve million which is correct (when rounded). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.177.253.106 (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

John Nevins?!

So this edit has been left by an anonymous user, uncited, and not cross-examined! *ANGRY NOISE* :D

Well, the guy's name is not John Nevins, it's Justin. And he says that the book was his inspiration for making these little cryptexes. Factualness = no.

http://www.cryptex.org/h_about.htm

Saebjorn! 17:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Practicality/Design and function?

I'm pretty sure that the vinegar was used to destroy the ink, not the papyrus itself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.84.75 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cryptex as a electronical music group

I know there is a music group called Cryptex, it is dubstep-oriented band. Requesting a couple of words about it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.72.171.100 (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture/Eureka

The Eureka episode mentioned is season 3 episode 5 "Show Me the Mummy" 90.190.83.190 (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do the citations have citation needed?

The uses of cryptex in popular culture is a list of references. Each one has "citation needed". Isn't the citation right there? You can go check the episode if you want. What other citation is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.197.9 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)